TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time before us. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the matter relating to the gifts received from the above said two parties to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the claim of the assessee afresh. The order of Ld CIT(A) with regard to the remaining amounts is confirmed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Computation of Long term capital gains on sale of four flats - AO did not allow deduction of 18% of sale consideration, being the share of daughters of the assessee - Held that:- We notice that the facts relating to this issue have not been properly brought on record, i.e., whether the spouse of the assessee has also contributed her own money at the time of purchase of properties or her name was included for name sake only. If the spouse of the assessee had contributed her own money, then the daughters shall have right over her properties, since the spouse of the assessee has claimed to have died intestate. In that case, the MOU entered between the assessee and her daughters have to be examined and a proper decision is required to be taken. In this regard, the Ld A.R invited our attention to the provision of Hin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment of gifts received by way of India millennium bonds as income of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. Assessment of interest income - AO noticed that the interest income shown in the TDS certificates was more than that offered by the assessee and hence assessed the difference amount as interest income of the assessee confirmed by CIT(A) - Held that:- If the assessee had already offered the different amount in the earlier year, the same cannot be assessed again in the current year, since double assessment of same income is not permissible. However, the claim of the assessee requires verification. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the claim of the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law.- Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand. - I.T.A. No. 3745/Mum/2009, I.T.A. No. 3977/Mum/2009 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2015 - Shri B. R. Baskaran ( AM ) And Ramlal Negi, ( JM ) For the Appellant : Shri Nishit Gandhi For the Respondent : Shri Chandip Singh ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran ( AM ) The assessee has filed these two appeals chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year 2002. He submitted that the very fact that the donors have held the bonds since 1998 would show that they were having the capacity to subscribe to the bonds and the same proves their credit worthiness. He further submitted that the assessee has furnished copies of passport of all the donors and hence the identity of the donors has also been proved. The very fact that these bonds have been transferred to the name of the assessee proves the genuineness of the transactions. Accordingly, he contended that the assessee has discharged the initial burden placed upon him under sec. 68 of the Act and accordingly contended that that order of Ld CIT(A) should be set aside. The Ld A.R also placed reliance on the following case law in support of his contentions:- (a) ITO Vs. Mahendra P Mehta (2011)(9 taxmann.com 34) (Mum Trib) (b) CIT Vs. Shri Gautam Balasaheb Ladkar Others (ITA No.1438 of 2013 others dated 24.08.2015)(Bom HC) 5. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee could not prove his relationship with the donors, the occasion for making gifts. Further, the assessee could not obtain any confirmation letters from the concerned donors and, in fact, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laws relied upon by the assessee, we notice that the facts prevailing in those cases are different, i.e., in the case of Shri Gautam Balasaheb Ladkar (supra), the donors have given affidavits confirming the fact of giving of gifts and in the case of Mahendra P Mehta (supra), the assessee therein received gifts from his brother in law (wife s brother). However in the instant case, the assessee has not received gifts from close relatives, but he has received the alleged gifts from unrelated third parties. Further, the assessee himself has admitted that he could not obtain confirmation letters from the concerned donors. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the assessment of gift amounts as income of the assessee. However, the Ld A.R pointed out that the gifts from Raju Jham and Patel Dhanlaxmiben Arvindbhai have been received in the earlier years and hence the same cannot be assessed in AY 2003-04. We are of the view that this claim of the assessee requires verification, since it is made for the first time before us. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the matter relating to the gifts received from the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be examined and a proper decision is required to be taken. In this regard, the Ld A.R invited our attention to the provision of Hindu Succession Act. We notice that the assessing officer has simply rejected the claim of the assessee without examining the rights of the daughters of the assessee over the properties of the assessee s spouse. Hence, in our view, this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the assessing officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. 11. The next issue relates to the rejection of claim for deduction of expenses incurred in respect of two flats located in Chennai. The AO rejected the claim, since there was difference in the amount of expenses claimed in the original computation of income and in the revised computation of income. Further, the assessee has also failed to substantiate that the expenses were incurred in connection with the transfer of flats located in Chennai. Before Ld CIT(A) also, the assessee did not furnish any other evidence and hence the first appellate authority confirmed the rejection of the claim. Before us also, no evidence was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surgent bonds, we uphold the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment of gifts received by way of India millennium bonds as income of the assessee. 14. The last issue relates to the assessment of interest income to the tune of ₹ 2,16,088/-. The AO noticed that the interest income shown in the TDS certificates was more than that offered by the assessee and hence assessed the difference amount as interest income of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. Before us, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had offered the difference amount in the earlier year on accrual basis. If the assessee had already offered the different amount in the earlier year, the same cannot be assessed again in the current year, since double assessment of same income is not permissible. However, the claim of the assessee requires verification. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the claim of the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 15. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
